4 ms·

I don't even understand what you are getting at. Why would a routine physical cost 10000? The question makes as much sense as asking "Should we have a military

I don't even understand what you are getting at. Why would a routine physical cost 10000? The question makes as much sense as asking "Should we have a military if soldiers have a salary of 250 billion dollars each?"

prostoalex 8y ago
"everyone should get medical care" suggests a system where one party (the taxpayers) are automatically covering a bill for medical service, while the other party (healthcare system) has every incentive to milk the system via over-testing, over-prescribing, over-scheduling routine visits and just plain old raising prices. The soldier analogy doesn't quite apply, as it doesn't require complex skills and providers of the service are not in short supply. A potential candidate can surely hold out for a starting salary that's 10x the average, but others eyeing his position will likely be content with the average. An anesthesiologist, on the other hand, or an MRI lab, might be the only game in town, and if they say the prices are going up by 10% next year, the prices are going up. One is welcome to drive to the next town over, but with taxpayers covering the expense, why bother? What cost constraints exist in "everyone should get medical care" system to prevent healthcare providers from consuming 100% of GDP?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Somehow plenty of countries are doing fine while even consuming less of GDP than the US. As far as I know Medicare doesn't consume 100% of GDP either.
  - prostoalex 8y ago
    Medicare doesn't cover everyone, and some people in the article experienced high copays on Medicare. Meanwhile, https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/sta... "Health spending is projected to grow 1.0 percentage point faster than Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per year over the 2017-26 period; as a result, the health share of GDP is expected to rise from 17.9 percent in 2016 to 19.7 percent by 2026."

prostoalex 8y ago

"everyone should get medical care" suggests a system where one party (the taxpayers) are automatically covering a bill for medical service, while the other party (healthcare system) has every incentive to milk the system via over-testing, over-prescribing, over-scheduling routine visits and just plain old raising prices. The soldier analogy doesn't quite apply, as it doesn't require complex skills and providers of the service are not in short supply. A potential candidate can surely hold out for a starting salary that's 10x the average, but others eyeing his position will likely be content with the average. An anesthesiologist, on the other hand, or an MRI lab, might be the only game in town, and if they say the prices are going up by 10% next year, the prices are going up. One is welcome to drive to the next town over, but with taxpayers covering the expense, why bother? What cost constraints exist in "everyone should get medical care" system to prevent healthcare providers from consuming 100% of GDP?

maxxxxx 8y ago
Somehow plenty of countries are doing fine while even consuming less of GDP than the US. As far as I know Medicare doesn't consume 100% of GDP either.
- prostoalex 8y ago
  Medicare doesn't cover everyone, and some people in the article experienced high copays on Medicare. Meanwhile, https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/sta... "Health spending is projected to grow 1.0 percentage point faster than Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per year over the 2017-26 period; as a result, the health share of GDP is expected to rise from 17.9 percent in 2016 to 19.7 percent by 2026."